Kiddushin 20

לקרובים

to relatives, e.g., his father, despite the fact that sexual intercourse between them is prohibited.

והלא דין הוא אם מוכרה לפסולין לא ימכרנה לקרובים מה למוכרה לפסולין שאם רצה לייעד מייעד ימכרנה לקרובים שאם רצה לייעד אינו מייעד אמר קרא לאמה מלמד שמוכרה לקרובים

The baraita asks: Why is it necessary to derive that halakha from the verse? But could this not be derived through logical inference: If he can sell her to people of flawed lineage, can he not sell her to relatives? The baraita answers: The verse is necessary, as what is unique about selling her to people of flawed lineage is that if that master wants to designate her, he can designate her. Although it is prohibited for these people to marry her, nevertheless the betrothal would take effect. Therefore, one cannot learn from this that he can also sell her to relatives. This is a situation where if this master wants to designate her, he cannot designate her, as betrothal is ineffective. Therefore, the verse states “as a maidservant,” which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.

ורבי מאיר לפסולין נפקא ליה מהיכא דנפקא ליה לרבי אליעזר בקרובים סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי אין מוכרה לקרובים

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term “as a maidservant” that one can stipulate that she cannot be designated, how does he know that one can sell her as a maidservant to people of unflawed lineage or relatives? The Gemara answers: He derives that she can be sold to people of flawed lineage from the verse where Rabbi Eliezer derives it: “If she does not please her master” (Exodus 21:8). With regard to relatives, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives.

תני חדא מוכרה לאביו ואין מוכרה לבנו ותניא אידך אין מוכרה לא לאביו ולא לבנו בשלמא אינו מוכרה לא לאביו ולא לבנו כרבנן אלא מוכרה לאביו ואין מוכרה לבנו כמאן

It is taught in one baraita: One can sell his daughter to his father, but he cannot sell her to his son. And it is taught in another baraita: He cannot sell her to his father nor to his son. The Gemara clarifies this issue: Granted, the baraita that states that he cannot sell her to his father nor to his son is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives whom she cannot marry. But in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that states that he can sell her to his father but he cannot sell her to his son?

לא כרבנן ולא כרבי אליעזר לעולם כרבנן מודו רבנן היכא דאיכא צד יעוד:

It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who forbid selling her to any relative, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits selling her to all relatives. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Although they say he cannot sell her to relatives, the Rabbis concede that he is permitted to do so where there is a possibility of designation. In this case, although the father of the girl’s father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girl’s uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.

תנו רבנן אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא בגופו נכנס בגופו יצא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר יחידי נכנס יחידי יצא מאי בגופו נכנס בגופו יצא אמר רבא לומר שאינו יוצא בראשי אברים כעבד אמר ליה אביי ההוא מלא תצא כצאת העבדים נפקא

§ The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: “If he comes in begappo he shall leave begappo” (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If he enters alone he shall leave alone. The Gemara clarifies. What is the meaning of the ruling that if he enters with his body he shall leave with his body? Rava said: This means to say that he is not released through the loss of his extremities like a Canaanite slave (Exodus 21:26), meaning he does not leave his master because of damage done to his body. Abaye said to Rava: This halakha is derived from a different verse: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7).

אי מהתם הוה אמינא ניתיב ליה דמי עיניה וניפוק קא משמע לן

Rava answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say: The master should give him the value of the eye that he took out and let him be released. In other words, one could say that the verse which states that a Hebrew maidservant does not leave as Canaanite slaves leave, which would serve as the source for the halakha of a Hebrew slave as well, does not mean that she is not released at all due to the loss of her extremities. Rather, it means that unlike Canaanite slaves, she receives compensation for the injury as well as being released. Therefore, the verse: “If he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,” teaches us that this is not so. Rather, although the master must reimburse him for the loss of his eye, he is not freed as a result of the injury.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר יחידי נכנס יחידי יצא מאי יחידי יצא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכי קאמר יש לו אשה ובנים רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית אין לו אשה ובנים אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית

The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is saying: If the Hebrew slave has a wife and children when he is purchased, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. But if he did not have a wife and children, i.e., he enters alone, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.

תנו רבנן נמכר במנה והשביח ועמד על מאתים מנין שאין מחשבין לו אלא מנה שנאמר מכסף מקנתו

§ The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who was sold for one hundred dinars and increased in value during his term, and his value stood at two hundred dinars, from where is it derived that if he wishes to redeem himself one assesses him, for the payment of the remainder of his service, based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars, his value when originally purchased? As it is stated: “Out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51).

נמכר במאתים והכסיף ועמד על מנה מנין שאין מחשבין לו אלא מנה תלמוד לומר כפי שניו

If he was sold for two hundred dinars and decreased in value and stood at one hundred dinars, from where is it derived that when he is redeemed one assesses him based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars? The verse states: “According to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.

אין לי אלא עבד הנמכר לנכרי הואיל ונגאל בקרובים ידו על התחתונה

I have derived this halakha only in the case of a slave sold to a gentile, since the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption, as he may be redeemed even by relatives who pay his money and free him. Consequently, in this case the owner is at a disadvantage, and regardless of whether his value increased or decreased the slave always pays the lower amount.

נמכר לישראל מנלן תלמוד לומר שכיר שכיר לגזירה שוה

In a case where the slave was sold to a Jew, from where do we derive that this halakha also applies to him? The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew: “As a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you” (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: “As a hired worker year by year he shall be with him” (Leviticus 25:53), for a verbal analogy. This verbal analogy teaches that the same halakha applies to one sold to a gentile as to one sold to a Jew.

אמר אביי הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לאביי מכדי הני קראי איכא למידרשינהו לקולא ואיכא למידרשינהו לחומרא מאי חזית דדרשינהו לקולא נידרשינהו לחומרא

When he was in a good mood, Abaye once said: Behold I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound on the Torah in the markets of Tiberias. I too am ready to answer any question put to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye: After all, with regard to those verses: “Out of the money that he was bought for” and “according to his years,” one could expound them leniently, and assess the cost of redemption at the lower amount. And one could, in equal measure, expound them stringently, i.e., one could say that if a slave was worth more when he was purchased, he pays according to “the money that he was bought for,” and if he increased in value he must pay “according to his years,” i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently.

לא סלקא דעתך מדאקיל רחמנא לגביה דתניא כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל ועמך במשתה

Abaye answered: It cannot enter your mind to expound the verses stringently, as indicated from the fact that the Merciful One is lenient with regard to a slave and is concerned about his well-being. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink.

שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכים והוא ישן על גבי התבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו

The baraita continues: This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own.

ואימא הני מילי לענין אכילה ושתיה כי היכי דלא ליצטער ליה הא לענין פדיון נחמיר עליה מדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דתניא רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אומר בא וראה כמה קשה אבקה של שביעית

That Sage asked Abaye: But one can say that this leniency in the case of a Hebrew slave applies only to the matter of eating and drinking, so as not to cause him suffering. But with regard to the matter of redemption, perhaps one should be stringent with him. The reason to be stringent is based on a statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., how great are the punishments not just for working the land, but also for treating lightly the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.

אדם נושא ונותן בפירות שביעית לסוף מוכר את מטלטליו שנאמר בשנת היובל תשבו איש אל אחזתו וסמיך ליה וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד

If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: “In this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “And if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand” (Leviticus 25:14), which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical halakhot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.

לא הרגיש לסוף מוכר את שדותיו שנאמר כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחזתו לא באת לידו עד שמוכר את ביתו שנאמר כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה

If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: “If your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: “And if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29).

מאי שנא התם דאמר לא הרגיש ומאי שנא הכא דאמר לא באת לידו כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו הותרה לו סלקא דעתך אלא נעשית לו כהיתר

The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the first sentence, in which the tanna says: He does not sense, and what is different here, in the continuation, in which he says: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him merely because he has sinned twice? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it is permitted. Therefore, when he violates a prohi-bition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.

לא באת לידו עד שמוכר את בתו שנאמר וכי ימכר איש את בתו לאמה ואף על גב דבתו לא כתיבא בהאי ענינא הא קא משמע לן ניזבין אינש ברתיה ולא ניזיף בריביתא מאי טעמא ברתיה מגרעא ונפקא והא מוספא ואזלא

The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, his poverty will increase until he sells his daughter, as it is stated: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though “his daughter” is not written with regard to that matter in Leviticus 25 but in Exodus, nevertheless, it teaches us this principle: A person will sell his daughter rather than borrow with interest. What is the reason for this? His daughter can occasionally deduct money from her debt and use it to leave her master, but this interest continuously increases.

לא באת לידו עד שלוה ברבית שנאמר וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך וסמיך ליה אל תקח מאתו וגו׳ לא באת לידו עד שמוכר את עצמו שנאמר וכי ימוך אחיך ונמכר לך

The baraita continues its exposition of the verses in Leviticus: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to borrow with interest, as it is stated: “And if your brother grows poor and his means fails with you” (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “Take no usury or interest from him” (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: “And if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to you” (Leviticus 25:39).

לא לך אלא לגר שנאמר לגר ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנאמר גר תושב משפחת גר זה נכרי כשהוא אומר לעקר

The baraita further states: Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger [ger]” (Leviticus 25:47). And this sale to a ger is not referring to a sale to a righteous convert [ger tzedek], but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]” (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, “or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” the Gemara expounds: “A stranger’s family”; this is a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it says: “To an offshoot of a stranger’s family,”

זה הנמכר לעבודה זרה עצמה

this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship. The baraita teaches that it is only due to a person’s sins that he reaches a point where he has to sell himself as a slave. Therefore, one should be stringent with him with regard to his redemption and not allow him to be redeemed easily.

אמר ליה התם הא אהדריה קרא דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל והלך זה ונעשה כומר לעבודה זרה אימא לידחי אבן אחר הנופל תלמוד לומר אחרי נמכר גאלה תהיה לו אחד מאחיו יגאלנו

Abaye said to that Sage: There, the verse brings him back, i.e., one must strive to redeem a Jew who has been sold as a slave. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this person who sold himself as a slave has gone and become a priest for idol worship, one might say: Let us throw a stone after the fallen, that is, since he has reached this nadir one should abandon him. Therefore, the verse states: “After he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48).

ואימא גאולה תהיה לו כי היכי דלא ליטמע בין הנכרים הא לענין פדיון נחמיר עליה מדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא

The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: “He shall be redeemed,” so that he will not be assimilated among the gentiles. But with regard to the matter of his redemption and freedom, let us act strictly with him, as derived from that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב אם עוד רבות בשנים וכתיב ואם מעט נשאר בשנים וכי יש שנים מרובות ויש שנים מועטות אלא נתרבה כספו מכסף מקנתו נתמעט כספו כפי שניו

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: “If there be yet many of the years, according to them he shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: “And if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his years” (Leviticus 25:52). But how can there be both many years and few years when, in any case, he will not serve for more than six years? Rather, this means that as the money of his value increased with the passage of time, he is redeemed “out of the money that he was bought for,” i.e., the price for which he was originally sold, which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over time, one determines his value “according to his years,” i.e., according to his current value.

ואימא הכי קאמר היכא דעבד תרי ופש ליה ארבע ניתיב ליה ארבע מכסף מקנתו עבד ארבע ופשו ליה תרתי ניתיב תרתי כפי שניו

The Gemara asks: But one can say that this is what the Torah is saying: In a case where he served for two years and an additional four years remain for his service, as indicated by the phrase “if there be yet many of the years,” let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him “out of the money that he was bought for.” If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated “and if there remain but few of the years,” let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, “according to his years.”

אם כן נכתוב קרא אם עוד רבות שנים אם מעט נשאר שנים מאי בשנים נתרבה כספו בשנים מכסף מקנתו נתמעט כספו בשנים כפי שניו אמר רב יוסף דרשינהו רב נחמן בר יצחק להני קראי כסיני

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, let the verse write: If there be yet many years, and: If there remain but few years. What is the meaning of the phrase “of the years”? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed “out of the money that he was bought for,” which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value “according to his years.” Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak homiletically interpreted these verses like Sinai. His exposition reflects the truth of Torah as it was given at Mount Sinai, as every matter is fully resolved.

(סימן עבד בית חצאין בית עבד קרובים) בעא מיניה רב הונא בר חיננא מרב ששת עבד עברי הנמכר לנכרי נגאל לחצאין או אינו נגאל לחצאין

The Gemara records a mnemonic device for the upcoming discussions: Slave, house, partial, house, slave, and relatives. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is sold to a gentile, can he be partially redeemed, or can he not be partially redeemed? Does this slave have the option of paying part of his value and thereby reducing his remaining period of service?

גאלתו גאלתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינו נגאל לחצאין אף האי נמי אינו נגאל לחצאין או דילמא לקולא אמרינן לחומרא לא אמרינן

The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: “According to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [ge’ullato]” (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term “ge’ullato” can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: “And he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [ge’ullato]” (Leviticus 25:26). Accordingly, just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed, but is either fully redeemed or not at all, so too, this slave cannot be partially redeemed. Or perhaps we say that he cannot be partially redeemed only if that leads to a leniency, but we do not say that he cannot be redeemed if it leads to a stringency.

אמר ליה לאו אמרת התם נמכר כולו ולא חציו הכי נמי נגאל כולו ולא חציו

Rav Sheshet said to him: Didn’t you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: “And he is sold” (Exodus 22:2), teaches that all of him is sold but not part of him? If he is worth one thousand, and he owes five hundred for theft, he cannot be sold. So too, in the case of one who was sold to a gentile, the phrase “he is redeemed” (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.

אמר אביי אם תימצי לומר נגאל לחצאין משכחת לה לקולא ולחומרא לקולא זבניה במאה יהב ליה חמשין פלגא דדמי ואשבח וקם על מאתן אי אמרת נגאל לחצאין יהיב ליה מאה ונפיק ואי אמרת אין נגאל לחצאין יהיב ליה מאה וחמשין ונפיק

Abaye said: If you say that he is partially redeemed, you find elements of leniency and stringency. This ruling can lead to a leniency in the following case: A master purchased a Hebrew slave for one hundred and the redeemer gives him fifty, which is half of his value, and afterward the slave increased in value and stood at two hundred. If you say that he can be partially redeemed he is already half-redeemed. Consequently, the redeemer gives him one hundred, half of his current value, and the slave goes out, i.e., is redeemed. And if you say that he cannot be partially redeemed, the redeemer gives the owner an additional one hundred and fifty and the slave goes out, as the initial fifty serves merely as the first payment, and he is now worth two hundred.

והאמרת נתרבה כספו מכסף מקנתו כגון דאוקיר וזל ואוקיר

The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays “out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51), i.e., one calculates the value of the slave in accordance with his value at the time when he was acquired, even if that is less than his present value. Why, then, should one have to pay the full two hundred? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he initially, before being sold, increased in value, was then sold for two hundred, and afterward decreased in value to one hundred, and subsequently he again increased in value so that he was worth the same amount as he was originally. In this case, his value of two hundred remains determinative.

משכחת לה לחומרא זבניה במאתן יהיב מאה פלגי דדמי ואיכסף וקם על מאה אי אמרת נגאל לחצאין יהיב ליה חמשין ונפיק ואי אמרת אין נגאל לחצאין הנך מאה פקדון נינהו גביה יהיב להו ניהליה ונפיק

Abaye proceeds to describe how you find a case that leads to a stringency. A master purchased a Hebrew slave for two hundred and the redeemer gave one hundred, which is half of his value, and the slave decreased in value and stood at a value of one hundred. If you say that he can be partially redeemed, the redeemer gives fifty and the slave goes out, i.e., is redeemed. And if you say that he cannot be partially redeemed, these one hundred are a deposit with him. Therefore, the redeemer gives it to him at the time of the redemption and the slave goes out. There is no reason to pay him more money, as he is now worth one hundred.

בעא מיניה רב הונא בר חיננא מרב ששת המוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נגאל לחצאין או אינו נגאל לחצאין גאלתו גאלתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת לחצאין אף האי נמי אינו נגאל לחצאין

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet with regard to a similar topic: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, which can be redeemed only during the first year after the sale, can it be partially redeemed, or can it not be partially redeemed? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Does he derive the verbal analogy of “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:29) and “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:26) from the case of an ancestral field and say that just as ancestral land cannot be partially redeemed, so too, this house cannot be partially redeemed?

או דילמא היכא דגלי גלי היכא דלא גלי לא גלי

Or perhaps one should say: In a case where the verse explicitly revealed that it cannot be redeemed partially, as it does in the context of an ancestral field, it revealed it. With regard to one who redeems an ancestral field, it is written: “And he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26), indicating that he has enough money to redeem the whole field, not part of it. By contrast, in a case where the Torah did not reveal that it cannot be redeemed, it did not reveal it, and therefore a house from a walled city can be partially redeemed, as the verse does not state this condition in that context.

אמר ליה ממדרשו של רבי שמעון נשמע שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין דתניא אם גאל יגאל מלמד שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation one learns that with regard to houses in walled cities, one can borrow money and redeem them, and similarly that one can partially redeem them. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that describes one who consecrates his field: “And if he will redeem [ga’ol yigal] the field” (Leviticus 27:19). The repetition of the verb teaches that one can borrow money and redeem houses in walled cities and that one can also partially redeem them.

אמר רבי שמעון מה טעם לפי שמצינו במוכר שדה אחוזה שיפה כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה חוזרת לבעליה ביובל הורע כחו שאינו לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason for this halakha? This is because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field that his power is enhanced, as, if the Jubilee Year arrives and it is not redeemed, the ancestral field returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year without them having to pay for it. Therefore, the power of the seller is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field but must have the money to do so on his own, and he cannot partially redeem it.

מקדיש שהורע כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל יפה כחו שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

By contrast, if one consecrates his field his power is diminished, as, if the Jubilee Year arrives and he did not redeem it in the meantime, and the Temple treasurer sold it to someone else, the ancestral field goes out and becomes the property of the priests in the Jubilee Year and does not return to its original owners. Consequently, in order to offset this stringency his power is enhanced in that he may borrow money and redeem the field, and partially redeem it.

האי מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נמי הואיל והורע כחו שאם מלאה לו שנה תמימה ולא נגאלה נחלט יפה כחו שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

According to this explanation, with regard to this one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, since his power is also diminished, as, if a full year passes and the house has not been redeemed it remains the permanent property of the buyer, in order to offset this stringency, his power should be enhanced in that he may borrow money and redeem the house, and partially redeem it.

איתיביה אם גאל יגאל מלמד שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

Rava bar Ḥinnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: “And if he will redeem [ga’ol yigal] the field” (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה מוכר שדה אחוזה שיפה כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה חוזרת לבעליה ביובל הורע כחו שאין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין מקדיש שהורע כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל אינו דין שהורע כחו שאין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

The baraita continues: As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to one who sells an ancestral field that his power is enhanced, as if the Jubilee Year arrives and it is not redeemed, it returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year, and yet his power is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field and he cannot partially redeem it; with regard to one who consecrates a field, where his power is diminished, for if the Jubilee Year arrives and it was not redeemed it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee Year, is it not logical that his power is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field and he cannot partially redeem it?

מה למוכר שדה אחוזה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל מיד תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל מיד

The baraita raises a difficulty against this a fortiori inference: What is unique about one who sells his ancestral field is that his power is diminished with regard to redeeming it immediately, as he cannot redeem his field right away but must wait at least two years. Shall you say that the same halakhot apply with regard to one who consecrates his field, as his power is enhanced with regard to redeeming it immediately? One who has consecrated his field can redeem it as soon as he has the money to do so. If so, the a fortiori inference is not valid.

מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל מיד ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין לא קשיא

The baraita responds: The case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities can prove otherwise, as his power is enhanced with regard to redeeming it immediately, and yet he cannot borrow money and redeem the house and he cannot partially redeem it. In any case, with regard to the issue at hand, the baraita indicates the opposite of the previous conclusion: One who sells a house in a walled city cannot partially redeem it. Rav Sheshet answers: This is not difficult.